messages to the 7 churches: background info for Revelation

This past spring (I guess it's still technically spring) I had the joy/challenge of teaching 4 weeks on Revelation. I've studied Revelation on and off for a few years (took an exegesis course on it in seminary, read a few books, etc), and have come to be a firm believer that John was writing not only to give a glimpse into the end of time, but to address specific circumstances of his readers. Chapters 2-3 give us the 7 churches to whom he wrote (though many feel the number 7 here is more symbolic, which is probably true, but at the very least we can say that his audience did include these 7 churches), and I discovered some interesting background data that help us see how Christ tailored His message to them through John. Following are some notes I jotted down as I was researching, some I learned a while ago, some recently, some I probably learned a while ago and had to relearn due to my failing memory.

To the church in Ephesus (2:1-7)- I learned the least about this city, mainly because I came in with more knowledge of it. It was very important in the NT times: Timothy was stationed there when Paul wrote his letters to him, Luke dedicates an entire chapter to the events in Ephesus in Acts 19, Paul wrote a letter to Ephesus (or least the churches in that area, see the textual problem of Ephesians 1:1), and church tradition says that John lived in Ephesus later in his life, which means that his gospel and his letters may have been written for Christians there. Ephesus also would have been the first stop for John's letter carrier, so naturally it would be addressed first.

To the church in Smyrna (2:8-11)- John addresses a problem with the Jewish-Christian relations in Smyrna. It's interesting to note that around 155 AD some Jewish people of Smyrna endorsed and even assisted in the killing of one of the great early Christian martyrs, Polycarp. That's about 60 years after Revelation was written, so it seems that this could have been a lasting problem for Christians in this city. The martyrdom of Polycarp is one of my favorite non-biblical stories, you can read it here.

To the church in Pergamum (2:12-17)- Pergamum was the capital of Asia at this time, and was the center of Emperor worship in this region, hence John calling this place "where Satan has his throne." It also had a large altar to Zeus, which I read was about 120 feet by 112 feet, which seems ridiculously huge. It's easy to see how this could be considered the home of Satan. Regarding the promise of a "white stone with a new name written on it", I read that in some places, when a person was found guilty of a crime they were given a black stone, but when found innocent, they were given a white stone. This may have been in mind here.

To the church in Thyatira (2:18-29)- This seems to have been the least important and least exciting of the 7 churches. It was a city of merchants, though the various metal workers present there may explain the emphasis on "burnished bronze" in v18 and the "iron scepter" of v27. The Romans called the planet Venus the "morning star", which was a symbol of victory, which may be why Christ promises to give them in "morning star" in v28.

To the church in Sardis (3:1-6)- Christ's main message to this church is one of readiness. He tells them to "wake up!" in v2 and threatens to "come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you" (v3). What is interesting is that Sardis had a great citadel which was never taken in battle. However, it was twice overtaken by sneak attacks at night. The residents of this city knew all too well the dangers of being unprepared for what might come, Christ's message to them must have hit home.

To the church in Philadelphia (3:7-13)- My Revelation professor (Dr Sean McDonough, not related the baseball announcer of the same name) pointed out that Christ's promise to make the Philadelphians "pillars in the temple of my God" may have had special meaning to them. This city had apparently suffered bad earthquakes that caused a lot of damage to the buildings there. The promise to become part of the unshakable structure of the Lord's temple would have been particularly powerful for these believers.

To the church in Laodicea (3:14-22)- This city was home to many famous banks and medical schools, which may explain why they felt so proud of their own accomplishments (v17). Some geographical background info may also explain some often misunderstood verses. Vv15-16 are often thought to mean that Christ would rather someone be completely on fire for Him or completely against Him (hot or cold), rather than someone who wavers (lukewarm). In reality, it is much more likely that Christ chose this aquametaphor specifically for this group because of their water problems. Laodicea lacked its own good water supply. It was located in between Hierapolis, which had a hot water supply used for medicinal purposes, and Laodicea, which had a natural cold water supply used for drinking. The waters mixed near Laodicea and made lukewarm water, which was good for nothing. Jesus is speaking more about usefulness than He is the level of one's commitment towards Him. The picture of a person spitting out lukewarm water would have been familiar to a Laodicean, even if we misunderstand it.

welcome to the world....

I'd like to say congrats to my good friends, Matt and Pam, and welcome to the world their baby boy, Gideon Matthew Neave. This little guy is as cute as can be, and I really mean that. I have no problems saying if a baby is ugly (not to their parents, of course), so you can rest assured I am not paying lip service when I say Gideon is absolutely adorable. This makes something like 8 babies born in our church since the beginning of 2006, which is a fairly high number considering we only run about 200 people. And we have a couple more pregnant, too (I just reread that sentence and it sounds like I'm saying we have a couple more babies pregnant, which is obviously not true, but I find the ambiguity funny so I'm leaving it). Exciting times. Blessings to the Neave family.

5.5 random things: sports edition

5.5: This post is dedicated to the sports radio morning personality who recently said to his cohosts, "True or false: name the top 7 hitters in the American League." Yes, he was serious.

5: There's a lot of talk around Boston about the Celtics not "winning the lottery" this past week when they didn't draw one of the top 2 picks in the upcoming draft, instead getting number 5. There is no doubt this franchise seems unlucky, this is the 10th anniversary of them not getting the number 1 pick (despite having the best odds) which went to San Antonio, who took Tim Duncan and have since won 3 titles (and will probably win a 4th this year). Personally, I think they ought to look into trading the pick along with a couple young players for a veteran. There are teams out there who would like to unload a large salary. In an ideal world, we'd find a way to rescue Kevin Garnett from Minnesota and keep Paul Pierce and Al Jefferson. I think it's possible, but we might have to unload a future draft pick along with our first pick this year and a young talent such as Gerald Green. I'd make that trade any day.

4: Since so much of this week has focused on the luck (or lack thereof) of the Celtics, many seem to have forgotten that even if you can't control luck, you can control stupidity. So my question is this: why did the Celtics sign Doc Rivers, a coach with little upside other than being a great guy, to an extension? What signs of hope has he given over the last 3 years? It amazes me how dumb some franchises can be. This reminds me of the 2003 series between the Red Sox and the Yankees, where many people blamed the Curse of the Bambino for the Sox blowing game 7. I say "no way," we were cursed with a stupid manager, who left Pedro in far too long. You can't control injuries or ping pong balls or anything like that, but you can control not making indefensible decisions.

3: Well, the Red Sox are firmly in 1st place, and much of the town is gloating over the Yankees demise. I'm comfortably in the camp of waiting to see what happens, you have to think that the Yankees will pull something together at some point. I don't think they are a World Series caliber team, by any means, but they are still the Yankees and they can still find a way to win.

2: With that said, signing Clemens was a dumb move for them. First, what makes anyone think that a 5-6 inning pitcher in the National League (a very pitcher friendly league) will suddenly come in and be an ace in the American League (a very unfriendly league for pitchers)? Here's a tip: an ace of a staff must be able to go more than 6 innings on a consistent basis. Second, by signing him to $20 million+ you make it more difficult to trade and sign players around the trading deadline. I realize that they are the Yankees, with deeper pockets than anyone else in baseball, but at some point money has to play a factor. Will Steinbrenner really spend more money on a sinking ship? Actually, yes, he probably will.

1: When will the "Kevin Youkilis for MVP" talk start? He currently leads the team in hitting (.349, 4th in the AL) by 20 points (over Mike Lowell, off to another hot start), runs scored (1 run more than David Ortiz), hits (6 more than Ortiz), he's second in On Base Percentage (behind Ortiz), and 3rd in slugging (even better than Manny Ramirez). On top of that, I read earlier this week that he hasn't made an error at first base since last July! I don't really think that he'll be this good at the end of the season, but there is no doubt that the Sox would not be where they are without him. They've been able to bat him in the number 2 hole, where his ability to get on base is paramount, and even in the 5 spot, where he provides some protection for the big bats. Not bad for someone making $424,500. Compare that to other first basemen in the league: Paul Konerko (.213, $12,000,000); Shea Hillenbrand (.231, $6,000,000); and Richie Sexson (.180, $15,500,000). I won't bother looking into the NL; that's just comparing a few AL first baseman, not including Jason Giambi, who makes over $20,000,000 but plays more DH than anything else. Here's hoping Youk makes the All-Star team this year.

why I am a premillennialist: some thoughts in progress

One of the most debated passages in the Bible is Rev 20:1-6. What do we make of the "1000 year" reign of Christ and His people? I cannot pretend to have figured this passage out perfectly; it seems to me that each position has its share of problems. Here are the main views taken by scholars, all of which have a good history of interpretation within the church:

Postmillennial- this view sees the millennium happening at the end of the "church age", preceding Christ's return. To put it simply, the world will be essentially Christian before Christ returns and His followers are resurrected.

Amillennial- this view sees the millennium beginning with Christ's first coming and continuing until His return, the picture of Christ and His people reigning in Rev 20 is a present reality. In my opinion, the best recent commentary on Revelation is Greg Beale's commentary, who is an amillennialist.

Premillennial- this view sees the millennium as a future time after Christ returns to this earth and His followers are resurrected. Within this view are 2 main camps: dispensationalist (one form of which can be seen in the Left Behind series) who add their own distinct flavor (pretribulational rapture, distinction between the Church and Israel), and historical premillennialists, who essentially hold to what I just said above.

I would be classified as a historical premillennialist, but a slightly odd one, because my reading of Revelation often looks more like something an amillennialist would hold (I won't bother getting into this now, just trust me). I had a friend in seminary who describe me this way: an anti-dispensationalist historical premillennialist with amillennialist tendencies. I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Anyway, I want to state from the outset that I think each of these 3 views are well within the realm of orthodoxy. This is not a hill I want to die on, I think we can find ways to coexist just fine (though I admit my pleasure in taking shots at dispensationalism). But the millennium, whatever we make of it, is in Scripture so I figure it's worth at least forming an opinion, no matter how tentative. I'll say a couple quick things before I begin my short list: 1) I don't take the 1000 years literally, I think it is a symbolic number just like the other numbers in Revelation; 2) I'm trying to restrict my comments to Revelation 20:1-6 and other passages in this book, since I could go on forever by including every conceivably important verse in the Bible; 3) I do think there are plenty of holes in the premillennial position- it's just that I think it has fewer big holes than the other positions. Without further ado, here you go:

1 And I saw an angel coming out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

1) The issue of Satan no longer deceiving the nations. I've often heard a caricature of the premillienial position that we sit in fear of the devil and his schemes. I'd rather say, in the words of one of my pastors, that we are "in awe of God but aware of the devil" (this, of course, can be true of any of these millenial positions). Elsewhere in the NT Satan is seen as active in our time (1 Peter 5:8-9), which may be enough to see Satan being bound happenig in the future. But even more convincing is Revelation 12:12, where Satan is said to be filled with anger because he has little time left. So, as the following verses show us, he decides to wage war on God's people. That is hard to reconcile with the picture of Satan being bound for a long period of time and his powers of deception being taken away. It is said by some that the words and picture in Rev 20 do not necessarily have to mean that all of his powers are thwarted (Beale gives his reasons for this in his commentary). But I wonder what language John would use if that were exactly the picture he wanted to draw. If he wanted to show that Satan's powers were no longer useful, what would he say, since apparently "seized", "bound", "locked and sealed... to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore" are not strong enough? (And it can't be something along the lines of "annihilated" since that doesn't happen until later in the chapter.)

2) Witnesses or judges? Throughout Revelation God's people are called to be and are portrayed as witnesses in this world. The word "witness" recalls the courtroom, where witnesses offer evidence which may assist in convicting or acquiting someone. God's people act as witnesses in that they testify for God, and their testimony condemns the world (or can vindicate some if they repent). Throughout this book God's people are called to be faithful witnesses unto the very end, even if that means their death (that is, after all, following in Christ's footsteps, see 1:5). However, in Rev 20 they are now seen as judges with Christ. This reflects a change in the Christian's current state and their state to come. This change comes when Christ returns and takes His throne on this earth, and His followers reign with Him.

3) The martyrs under the altar or reigning with Christ? Ben Witherington points out that the martyred souls in Rev 6:9-11 are under the altar awaiting the judgment of those responsible for their deaths. In Rev 20, the souls of the martyrs are seen as reigning and judging with Christ. In Rev 6, they are told to wait. In Rev 20, they don't seem to be waiting for anything, they are finally fulfilling their roles as a "kingdom and priests" that is seen in Revelation. In other words, there is a change in their position, a change which is a result of the resurrection.

4) Addressing Beale's claim that beheaded souls must refer to non-material bodies. Beale claims that psuche (traditionally translated "soul") does not have to refer to a physical body (as it does in Rev 8:9, 12:11, 16:3- in these passages "living body" may be the best translation), and this is true (Rev 6:9 is a perfect example of this). He also claims that it cannot refer to a physical body here because these folks were beheaded: "an awkward picture emerges: 'bodies of beheaded people'" (pg 998). This, however, is not a problem if you see these folks as those who have been resurrected. In other words, John sees "the souls of those who had been beheaded" but were now resurrected (therefore no longer missing their heads).

5) If "came to life" refers to physical resurrection in v5, then it is likely to in v4. Beale argues that the meaning of this verb can change within one verse, which is true. But one must provide strong evidence that this is the case. It is possible John changes the meaning that quickly, but doing good exegesis in difficult passages isn't about proposing what is possible but what is most likely.

6) The problem of "resurrection." In v4, the "souls" of the martyrs "come to life" and reign with Christ. This is, in John's words, "the first resurrection" (v5), as opposed to when the "rest of the dead" come to life. For an amillenial or postmillenial interpretation to work, "come to life" and "resurrection" in v4 have to be taken in a "spiritual" sense (though I hate that term, because I don't think that's how the Bible uses "spiritual" at all, but it's the common lingo so I'll adopt it here) rather than physical. If "first resurrection" refers to a non-material resurrection, then when does the physical resurrection take place? I guess I have a problem with any view that sees "resurrection" as anything other than a bodily resurrection (to be clear, amillennialists and postmillennialists do believe in a bodily resurrection of believers, they just don't think that's what's in view here).

You'll notice that one of the common themes in these is the change in these verses from the rest of the Book of Revelation. The way the martyrs are described is different from elsewhere in the book. God's people have now come to life and are resurrected. Satan's work is described differently here than elsewhere in Revelation (see chapter 12). Something has changed to make all this happen. In my opinion, the best explanation for this is that these verses are speaking of a different time from the rest of the book of Revelation. We are still waiting for these verses to be fulfilled, when Christ will return and His followers will be resurrected just as He was.

Is it a compliment? Episode III

Welcome to the third installment of "Is it a compliment?", the favorite gameshow here at Blog of Danny. The basic jist of the game is this: I give you a comment someone has recently made to me that may or may not have been a compliment (and of course the ambiguity is heightened by the lack of context or voice inflection), and you weigh in with your opinions/contextual conjectures. You can check the "Is it a compliment?" link to the right to see previous episodes. This has been a popular feature thus far, I trust it will continue to be. Anyway, here is this week's quote:

"Well... you have hair."

my top 5 NT studies books

Those who know me well are aware of my affinity for books, especially books in the realm of biblical studies. A while back I decided to post my favorite 5 NT books from my own personal library, but I'm just now getting around to it. Please note, these are only from my personal library, there may be (and probably are) some out there that would make it on the list but I don't own them. Also note that these are not commentaries (maybe I'll get around to that), but rather books that cover a particular topic or theme. These are not necessarily in any particular order, except that my favorite is last, because I believe in saving the best for last (which is why I eat the edges of my Pop-Tarts first, as well as the crusts of my sandwich).



So my first one is actually an honorable mention, which is kind of cheating (maybe I should have called this my top 6). The Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament by Craig Keener is technically a commentary, so it doesn't fit the criteria for my list. However, I feel that I can't leave it off because I have found it to be an indispensable resource (I just realized after I typed this sentence that those exact words are on the cover of the book, weird). The truth is that most of us never study ancient history or ancient cultures, so our knowledge of important background information is limited. We often get the sense that there is something going on that we don't understand because the NT culture is so far removed from our own. So whether you're dealing with head coverings or Jewish dinner customs, Keener has given us a crash course in ancient culture all in one book going passage by passage. I personally think that if someone learns the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics (see the Fee and Stuart books pictured on the right), then the most important resource for them is a good book on background information. Keener fits that bill.

Back in my senior year of college I took a class on the Life and Teachings of Jesus. One of the books assigned to us was this book, The Jesus Quest, by Ben Witherington III. I suppose it isn't so much an NT studies book as it is a book about NT studies and studiers. Witherington is a master of making clear what is often confusing, especially when it comes to the view points of other scholars. In this book he takes on what is known as the "Quest for the Historical Jesus." He gives an overview of various scholarly opinions, from those of the Jesus Seminar (his chapter is great for those who aren't familiar with this group) to more serious scholars, such as John Meier and N T Wright. He gives solid critiques of the views presented, but also is able to pull away some good lessons to learn from just about any scholar. It would be nice if he would update this book to include some of the recent works (such as that of James Dunn), but if you're one of those who watch all those "Jesus specials" on TV (I'm raising my hand) and wonder who these scholars are, chances are Witherington will talk about them.

I've always found Richard Hays to be an absolutely fascinating scholar. Though I often disagree with his approach, he never ceases to challenge my reading of a text. At least one of his books has become something of a modern classic (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) that is referred to frequently by NT scholars. Simply put, he's one of those scholars that you must deal with even when you disagree. That is how I approach this book on NT ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays will no doubt infuriate those from a strong conservative viewpoint (that would be me, by the way) because he doesn't really take an "inerrancy" point of view, but if you read him carefully you'll find that he presents strong cases for his arguments. He often comes away with conservative stances (abortion is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, etc), but is probably not strong enough for some. In a rare touch for Bible scholars, he even includes some personal stories, which I find refreshing (his story about his good friend who was gay was particularly touching). His chapter on war and pacificism (he's a pacifist) was, to be honest, challenging. I'm not saying he turned me into a pacifist, but he certainly made me think. All this to say, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who are well grounded in Scripture. For someone who is still trying to figure out where they stand on some issues and struggle with the authority of the Bible in our lives, this is not the book for them.

One of the hardest things about making this list is choosing only one N T Wright book. I could just as easily have chosen his book on Paul, The Climax of the Covenant or even better is his phenomenal treatment of the resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is probably his best book. I have opted, however, to go with Jesus & the Victory of God because it was this book that introduced me to Wright's scholarship and made me a fan. Mind you, there are plenty of points of disagreement, but he often forces me to rethink my position. Wright is probably the most consistent scholar I've ever read, even if consistent to a fault. For example, Wright opposes much of popular Christian writing on Jesus by arguing that Jesus did in fact have a message to preach to His original hearers, not just a timeless system of salvation (this is easily misunderstood, Wright certainly believes in salvation for all ages). Wright reads the gospels in light of this understanding, which I agree with. However, being stubbornly consistent in this has led Wright to take some unlikely interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus never refers to His second coming. Those references in Mark 13 (and parallels) to Christ coming on the clouds of heaven are Christ's judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD rather than Him returning some day (again, Wright does believe Jesus is coming back from other texts, notably Paul, he just doesn't think Jesus Himself predicts it). I tend to think that runs contrary to the words of the angel in Acts 1:9-11, spoken a mere month and a half after Jesus uttered His words. At any rate, Wright is masterful in placing Jesus within His historical context and explaining His message in His own time (which does, in turn, help us understand it more clearly, rather than confusing it as some might suppose). Wright is also quite adept at pointing out the fundamental flaws in some scholars (such as Crossan & the Jesus Seminar). If you get nothing else out of his writings, you should pay attention to his methodology and his critiques of other's presuppositions. You will learn more than you counted on.


As with N T Wright, I had trouble choosing which Richard Bauckham book I would add to this list. Interestingly, my favorites are two small books. I could have chosen God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (a mere 89 pages) and been quite happy with it. But I opted for his book in the New Testament Theology series, The Theology of the Book of Revelation. What I love about Bauckham (again, similar to Wright) is that you can learn how to do exegesis/theology while you read his books. Packed into 164 pages are discussions on the high Christology of Revelation (the sharing of divine titles and worship between the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb as evidence of this), the importance of God as Creator for the book ("Where faith in God the Creator wanes, so inevitably does hope for resurrection, let alone the new creation of all things. It is the God who is the Alpha who will also be the Omega." p51), a great discussion on true victory as depicted in Revelation (faithful witness through suffering and death), and so on. As I am currently teaching Revelation I continually find myself refering to Bauckham to make clear what I often find muddled.


Without a doubt my favorite book in NT studies is Gordon Fee's magesterial tome, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. In this book, Fee discusses (in great depth) every instance where Paul mentions or alludes to the Holy Spirit. He covers grammatical issues, theological issues, contextual problems and so on with great clarity. This book is over 900 pages (!), but can be read in portions (although if you want to read it cover to cover I'm sure you'll still learn a lot). He pulls his exegetical discussions together at the end with a helpful synthesis of Paul's view of the Holy Spirit. One of the distinctive contributions Fee makes to this discussion is his insistence that the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality to Paul and his churches. In other words, there were actual manifestations of the Spirit's power and presence (see 1 Corinthians 14 and Galatians 3:5). While Fee comes from a Penecostal background, he does have some differing views from this tradition. Most notably is the view that all Christians are full of the Spirit from the moment of conversion. In Paul's mind, there is no such thing as a non-Spirit filled Christian, those terms are contradictory (see Romans 8:9 and the assumption that his readers all have the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5 and 5:22-25).

Easter service comedy

This morning in church our pastor gave a childrens sermon, which is always a treat. After he had gathered all the kids of the church around him, he asked them what was special about Easter.

A little boy, William, age 3, yells out, "new underpants!"

once again, 5.5 random things

5.5: This post is dedicated to Sarasota, Florida. Though you are hot, you were a pleasure to visit.

5: Well, the Sox have started out 2-2, with 1 great pitching performance (Dice-K), 2 good pitching performances (Beckett and Wakefield, who lost due to a lack of offense), and 1 horrible one from Curt Schilling, who thinks he deserves a $13 million dollar extension for next year, despite the fact that he's only getting older (at an age when this is not helpful) and his numbers have dropped each year he's been here. Obviously it's early, but you have to wonder about him. Plus, he has a blog now, how cliche is that!

4: Boston is hardly a hotbed for college sports, but the city paid more attention to this year's basketball tournament than probably any in recent memory (including ones where Boston College actually had a chance to make some waves). This is due to the Celtics' deplorable record, ensuring that they will not pick worse than number 5 in this year's draft. My fear is that they'll buy into the hype and draft Joakim Noah from Florida. He's done well in college, and I'm always fond of picking proven winners, but he'll never be more than a good bench player in the pros. He can play some defense, can rebound, and will out-hustle anyone on the floor. But he can't shoot, at all, and I'm not convinced he'll be able to cover power forwards in the NBA (can you picture him covering Duncan, Garnett or Brand?).

3: Speaking of drafts, you may get a kick out of this, courtesy of Tim Challies.

2: I'm ready for a weather change here in Boston. I've always loved the cold, and I always will. But I think living in an apartment with no heat this year (yes, that's right, no heat all winter) has finally taken its toll, well, that and being in Florida last week where I could wear shorts all day long and not have to worry about it. Besides, it's baseball season, it's time to be outside playing and watching games, not bundling up. I think I'm getting soft in my old age.

1: Well folks, it's Good Friday. Easter is my favorite holiday of the year. I pray that you all relish in the grace that God has given us. Take time to meditate on the single greatest act of love and power this world has ever, and will ever, witness. Praise God for the death and resurrection of His Son!

2007 Boston Red Sox: preseason thoughts

Before I head to the sunny shores of Gulf Coast Florida for a short vacation, I thought I'd share some thoughts I have on the upcoming season for the Boston Red Sox. I think there's plenty of reason to be excited, but there are always a number of question marks. Without further ado, here you go:

Infield:

Catcher- There is the mainstay of the franchise at catcher, Jason Varitek. With him you'll know that you'll get some decent offense and the best gamecaller in baseball.

3B & 1B- We know that the corners will provide slightly better than average offense with Mike Lowell and Kevin Youkilis. Lowell is excellent defensively as long as he stays healthy, and Youkilis turned out to be better than anyone thought he would be. I'd still like to have more offense from the first base position, but it's not like he's a lame duck.

2B & SS- As far as the middle infield we've gone from Gonzalez-Loretta to Lugo-Pedroia. That's a serious downgrade defensively (especially losing Gonzalez at shortstop), but an upgrade offensively. I personally think they'll miss Gonzalez more than the management thinks, he is a one-of-a-kind talent at shortstop. The advantage is that Lugo is much better offensively. But I have to wonder if the Sox have strayed from the attitude that helped them win the World Series in 2004 when they traded offense for great defensive players. I guess we'll find out. Pedroia is dreadful offensively, but we can hope that his short time in the big leagues in September (when he basically took a dump at the plate) was an aberration. I have a feeling that he won't be the starting second basemen by the middle of the season, with veteran Alex Cora starting or a trade bringing in another veteran. We'll see.

DH- I guess I'll throw in David Ortiz here, but nothing more needs to be said about him. He's the best clutch hitter in baseball. Of everyone on this team, he's the least of our worries. Expect another MVP caliber season out of him.

Outfield:

Leftfield- Manny Ramirez. Drama. Occasional laziness. Fake injuries. Guaranteed production from one of the best hitters in baseball. I'll take it.

Centerfield- Coco Crisp had a very disappointing first season with the BoSox, largely due to injuries. Many here in Boston were crying for his departure at the season's end, but I think he's worth more time. He's got tons of talent (he's so fast!), and even though he throws like a girl he helps in the field. His offense was down last year, but it's hard to hit when you play with a broken finger. I'm hoping for a healthy and productive season and a trip back up to the top of the order for Coco.

Rightfield- We let Trot Nixon, our beloved rightfielder, go because of his constant injury problems, giving up his $6 million dollar salary. Instead, we picked up JD Drew and his 8 career trips to the disabled list (!) for $14 million. That's $14 million a year for 5 years for a man who has been incredibly average his entire career. He has 8 more trips to the disabled list than trips to the all-star game. And you'll remember that I wrote just 2 sentences ago that he's been on the DL 8 times. I'd rather give the full time position to Wily Mo Pena and his lower salary and see what happens.

Starting Pitching:

It's interesting, folks up here in Boston are raving about the starting pitching. It certainly has the names, here's the rotation as it stands today:

1- Curt Schilling
2- Josh Beckett
3- Daisuke Matsuzaka
4- Tim Wakefield
5- Kyle Snyder/Julian Tavares

That looks good, there's no doubt. But Schilling is only getting older, and despite his own claims of feeling like he'll do great, there's no reason to think that his decline will stop suddenly. That's not to say he'll be awful, but he won't be great. Beckett had a disappointing year last year, but he's young and full of talent. Matsuzaka is a bit of a wild card, he could be incredible, he could be incredibly average. I think he'll do well, 15-17 wins sounds about right, which is great for a #3 starter. All in all, this has the potential to be the best starting rotation in the American League.

Bullpen:

With Jonathan Papelbon moving into the closer role the bullpen is blostered enormously. While I think Papelbon is better off being a starter in the long run, for this season the team is helped more by him being a closer. That frees Timlin, Pineiro, Donnelly, and crew to play the set up roles and provide stability. In one day this bullpen went from shakey to very good with Papelbon's move. My guess is that they'll add another arm to the bullpen, either through a trade or with John Lester's return from cancer coming in a couple months (he could end up in the starting rotation, which would mean one of the #5's mentioned above moving into the bullpen).

So here's my prediction: 99-63, narrowly winning the American League East over the Yankees. And of course I'm predicting they'll win the World Series. This time it doesn't feel like a stretch.

one last plug

I've done this a few times, but this is the last time, I promise. My good friend, Brian, has made his blogging return. In his first post back he quotes AC/DC. In his second post he tackles the Documentary Hypothesis. That is a sign of a good blogger. I'm glad you're back, B-Funk Marchizzle, I hope you stay. I've added a link to the right.

Notions of New Nomenclature: Saul to Paul

One of the perplexing changes that occur in the Bible is the sudden switch from Saul of Tarsus being known as Paul. From his introduction in Acts 7:58 he was simply known as Saul, the once persecutor turned preacher of Christ. Seemingly out of nowhere in Acts 13:9 we read, "Then Saul, who was also called Paul..." and from then on he is always refered to as Paul. By the time of his earliest letter (which I take to be Galatians) he only refers to himself as Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.

There have been a number of suggestions for this change. The one that most of us probably heard over the years is that Paul changed his name when he became a Christian, presumably because the association with Saul, the rejected king who disobeyed God and attempted to murder David, was no longer a favorable one (as if it would be any more favorable for a Jewish person). One book even states, "Jesus changes Saul's name to Paul" (137), which is a bewildering statement considering Jesus' role in the name change is never spelled out by any biblical writer (or even suggested).

Perhaps my prefered suggestion is that Paul, being a Roman citizen, actually would have had 3 names including his ethnic name (Saul, his Jewish name) and a more Romanized name, in this case, Paul. You can find this in a couple places, I always recommend Craig Keener's Biblical Background Commentary on the NT for this type of info. This would lend us to think that Paul strategically begins to go by his Roman name as he ministers more and more to Gentiles (and it might not be a coincidence that Sergius Paulus is mentioned in Acts 13 as well, perhaps Paul was hoping to garner some favor). Obviously one could go by two names, Peter is known as Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) in the NT (though he is not a Roman citizen, and these are nicknames anyway, remember his name is actually Simon); but it is understandable why Paul made this decision.

But today I ran across an article by one of my former professors, Sean McDonough, in the summer edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature. He makes another suggestion that I find intriguing, though perhaps not convincing. He notes how Paul, as he begins preaching in 13:16, gives a "history of Israel" in sermonic form (not unlike Stephen in Acts 7) and includes a reference to Saul in vv21-22, the only time he is mentioned in the entire NT (I believe). McDonough suggests that this is an odd thing to mention (there are more important characters left out of his sermon), but believes it gives us a clue to why Saul begins to go by "Paul."

King Saul was a man of great physical stature, one who commanded respect merely at the sight of him. But his character did not match his imposing size, making him a goat more than a hero in the biblical story. Saul of Tarsus had a different goal in mind (who wouldn't?), and opted not to be associated with one of great physical presence, so he adopted Paulus as his name. Paulus is a Latin name meaning "small." It was a fairly common name in the ancient world. In switching his name, Paul was declaring that he was not going to be a physically dominating man, but a "small" man (in the eyes of the world). Of course, if 2 Corinthians 10:10 ("in person he is unimpressive") refers to his small stature, he may not have had a choice.

At any rate, I'm not really convinced this is what Paul had in mind, I still think the second option mentioned is preferable. Both the latter 2 are better than the first, which has little biblical evidence to commend it. I guess I lean towards the second simply because the biblical writers, including Paul, don't make a big deal out of the name change, so we probably shouldn't either (unless Luke was being really subtle). Instead, if there is a reasonable suggestion based on solid (historical) evidence that would have made sense to the original readers, that's the one I'll choose. If anyone is still reading this blog, I'd love to hear what you think.

assumptions & arguments: early Christian beliefs in 1 Corinthians

Sometimes it takes being sick to help us realize what is truly important, like blogging. Okay, that's a bunch of crud, but I since I've called out of work (or called in, which do you say?) I have the time to write something. In fact, I may write two somethings if I have time. Anyway, it's been over 3 weeks since I last blogged, even my own mother was making fun of me the other day for it.

I'm just beginning to teach 1 Corinthians in a class for my church and I'm really excited. One thing I notice about this letter of Paul is how it gives us a clue into the life of the early church that we might not otherwise have if the Corinthians weren't so screwed up. For instance, there is no other book in the NT where it clearly states that the earliest Christians regularly observed the Lord's Supper. True, we have mentioning of breaking bread in homes in Acts 2:46 which may well refer to this, "tasting the heavenly gift" in Hebrews 6 is another possibility; there may be more, these were just off the top of my head. But I'm not sure we would have strong NT evidence without 1 Corinthians (side note: take a moment and read 1 Cor 11:17-34 and note in what ways most of us do not observe the Lord's Supper in the manner Paul instructs here).

What I find more interesting, however, is not the controversial points, but those points which Paul assumes he and his readers agree to. The common ground they share gives us a great clue as to what the earliest Christians believed and practiced. For instance, even with a largely Gentile congregation Paul refers to the OT Scriptures in a way that assumes they know what he's talking about. Even if they don't have the background Paul does, they know enough that Paul feels comfortable using them (I'm assuming, of course, that Paul is knowledgable of their Scriptural comprehension and not overshooting).

You'll also see how Paul, in 8:6, weaves Jesus into the Shema (from Deuteronomy 6:4-5), which is quite a strong statement of Jesus' divinity coming from the pen of a Jew. Again, he doesn't argue this point, he assumes the readers accept it already. In fact, he so strongly assumes its acceptance he uses as a building block for his argument. This indicates that the divinity of Jesus was already considered standard doctrine very early (scholars Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have argued this at length).

One last thing I noticed is the reference to Jesus' earthly life that Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:23-25. It is a common criticism of more liberal scholars to claim that Paul really didn't know much, if anything, about Jesus' life on earth, otherwise Paul would refer to it more often. Here, Paul, while discussing the Lord's Supper, quotes from Jesus. He even puts it within a context- "on the night he was betrayed" (v23). Paul is clearly aware of the tradition of Jesus' betrayal and feasting with His disciples and assumes the Corinthians are as well. Is it unreasonable to imagine that Paul discussed these things with them when he was present and preaching the gospel? These are the foundational aspects of Pauline Christianity, we are reading the problems that arise in living out the gospel (this goes for 1 Corinthians, Galatians and most other Pauline letters).

My point is this: if you want to get an accurate look at the earliest Christian beliefs and practices, sometimes the best thing you can do is read what is assumed rather than what is argued. Since these letters were written to address specific situations at specific times we ought to excuse Paul for not writing a systematic theology textbook (no, not even Romans counts). Like a good pastor he is trying to right the ship where it has gone off course. He uses the gospel, the Jesus tradition and his previous teachings to lay the foundation, but spends most of his time arguing the implications of these things in the life of his churches.

dealing with writer's block

Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything, even longer since I've posted anything of any substance. Instead, I will direct you to what is now my favorite comic strip. My sister e-mailed me a link a while back to Dinosaur Comics, a comic strip where only the text changes, never the pictures. I find it hilarious, though it is certainly not for everyone. Case in point, read this and decide if you like it or not (this is the particular comic my sister sent to me). If not, Dinosaur Comics might not be for you, though I think you should check out more of them.

While I'm here, check out Elijah Teague's first report card, given to him by his father, Bruce. I think he did pretty well for a newbie. And for more baby stuff, see Matt & Pam's latest post (better check it out, they only come about twice a year) about their baby. This is what happens when your friends are pregnant or new parents, you end up filling your blog with baby stuff. I need a life.

The Day of Reckoning: Patriots-Colts, postgame thoughts

There is no worse feeling as a sports fan than watching your team collapse and lose a big game. I should know, I'm a Red Sox fan. And no matter how many times it happens, you never get used to it. I never really thought the Patriots of this decade would hurt me like the Sox have time and time again. A comeback story is always fun, unless you were rooting for Ivan Drago or something. In this case, I was. Here are some quick thoughts.

People I'd Like To Blame:

1. Reche Caldwell- two dropped passes in crucial situations. The worst was when the Colts forgot to cover him. The Pats should have scored a touchdown, instead they settled for the field goal. That's a 4-point difference. How many points did they lose by? 4.

2. Bill Belicheck- how is it possible that he had a terrific game plan in the 1st half, but didn't come up with something better in the 2nd? And Corey Dillon getting only 1 carry in the 2nd half? I realize he ain't what he used to be, but that's ridiculous.

3. The refs- sounds cheap, and it is. They really blew the roughing the passer call on Banta Cain, which put Indy on the 12 to win the game. But, in the end, it really doesn't matter, the Pats probably would have lost anyway.

4. The linebackers- can we please cover somebody? Please?

5. Bill Belicheck- wait, I'm not done with him yet. I think it's about time he learns that he can't just plug anybody in a position and expect to win. Eric Alexander playing linebacker on the must crucial stand of the season?!?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!?! Who is he? No, seriously, who is he? You only get so many chances to win Super Bowls, you shouldn't try to squeeze by like the Patriots have done the last 2 years.

Ultimately, though, this game wasn't about the Patriots blowing an 18-point lead, to focus on that is to take away credit from Peyton Manning and the Colts. Manning has always had the reputation of blowing the big game, and it looked like he was well on his way in the 1st half. His interception to Asante Samuel was telegraphed the whole way, and when he took the delay of game penalty on his own 5 it looked like he was completely shell shocked. Then he comes out in the 2nd half, abandons the long ball for the short game and leads his team to victory. The Colts scored on 4 consecutive drives in the 2nd half against the #2 defense in the NFL. He deserves credit for beating the Patriots in an important game, something many thought he'd never do. I hope he goes on to win the Super Bowl against the Bears, then returns to form next year and loses to New England. He deserves it.

another football post: Pats-Colts, this Sunday

Imagine a team with a star quarterback. Now imagine that this team has played the last two games with him playing poorly, and I mean poorly. Now imagine that this team has a defense without many Pro Bowlers, but who have played the last two games with tenacity and grit. This team has won both of those games despite the quarterback because the defense stepped up and played big.

What scares me is that this describes both the Patriots and the Colts, but perhaps the Colts moreso than the Pats. What scares me is that this is the formula the Pats have used over and over again throughout this decade, and they've won 3 Super Bowls. Contrast that with the Peyton Manning-led Colts, who won because their quarterback would feast on inferior defenses and his defense was just good enough to hold on. That formula never works. But for the last two games the Colts have won even though Manning has played poorly; they've won because the defense was able to shut down the opposing team. This has been a hallmark of Patriots football, now the Colts are trying for their version.

It's funny how the human mind works. Last week the Pats were the heavy underdogs, and I convinced myself they would win (and I was right, in case you forgot). This week the Pats might still be underdogs (largely because of the national media's collective mancrush on Peyton Manning), but many give them a good shot at winning. And I find myself finding reasons why this will be the year the Colts finally beat the Pats in a game that matters. I think years of being a Red Sox fan and watching them lose so often has conditioned me to think this way (it's funny how winning a World Series hasn't changed that too much).

But, I've decided to be more brave and actually attempt a real pick. Instead of expecting to lose and celebrating at the joy of winning, I've opted to expect what I think will really happen. I may not be successful, but I'll give it a whirl. So with that in mind, here are some thoughts:

The Colts defense has been playing well, but it's easy to overstate their effort. This past Sunday was against the Baltimore Ravens, who own one of the worst offenses in football. When you're entire offense is built around a way-past-his-prime quarterback, a decent tight end and a decent running back, well, you're in trouble. And their playoff opener was against the Kansas City Chiefs, a team coached by Herm Edwards. We Patriots fans know Herm well from his days with the New York Jets. I'm not sure Herm could have coached a worse game, it was a gift to the Colts, quite frankly. But, you can't hold that against the Colts defense. You can only play the teams you're scheduled to play, and they've beaten them. That's all you can do.

The Colts clearly have an advantage in the kicking game, where they now have Adam Vinatieri, the great former Patriots kicker. He's the greatest clutch kicker in football history, whereas we have a rookie kicker. Let's hope this doesn't come down to field goals.

I find it funny how many people in the national media are claiming that this is "Peyton Manning's time". In fact, a sports show here in Boston got a lot of mileage out of it, and I tend to agree with them. Since when does that pass as in-depth analysis? "Why will the Colts win this game? Because it's Peyton's time." Does that make sense? Does this work in any other realm of life (other than the Oscars)? Does it work on Wall Street? What about in your job? School? What about dating, does it work there? Wait, nevermind.

On the flip side, maybe the fact that Peyton is able to win despite playing poorly is a sign of things changing. Oddly enough, if he had sprung for 5 touchdown passes over the last two games I would be less worried, because it would mean to me that he's just the same old Peyton. But he's taken a page out of Tom Brady's playbook- play crappy football for a while, put together a drive or two when it matters. Brady's won 3 Super Bowls. Doesn't necessarily make much sense, but it scares me a bit.

As for the Patriots, they'll have to run the ball well. Looking back 2 years ago, most thought the Patriots would lose to the Colts in the playoffs, but the Pats introduced them to Clock Killin' Corey Dillon. It would be nice to see Dillon run the ball down their throats like old times.

The front 7 for New England will have to get pressure on Manning and be able to stop the run without help from the secondary. The Colts have great receivers, as well as a good tight end, so the defensive backfield will have their hands full. In fact, I think New the Patriots will have to cheat with a linebacker dropping back, which may mean there are only 6 guys playing up front, especially if Rodney Harrison is out again.

The biggest advantage the Patriots have is the coaching. Belicheck has consistently come up with game plans to confuse Manning. I realize that the Colts have won the last 2 regular season matchups, but there were major injury problems last year and this year the Pats have improved tremendously since they played earlier in the season. Some may call this a cop-out, I call it truth. In football, more than any other sport, coaching counts, advantage New England.

So here is my call for this Sunday, subject to deletion if I'm wrong:

Colts- 24
Patriots- 31

where I come from

I hope you don't mind if I interrupt my series of boring football posts to ask you to read something I found absolutely fascinating. I've mentioned Jeremy's blog (and I'm sure you'll remember that Jeremy is my second cousin) a few times, but today he posted something completely different from what I've thrown in your direction before.

If genealogies interest you at all (or even if they don't), take a look at his latest post, entitled Pierce Ancestry, and see a bit of my family background. And by "a bit" I mean a whole lot. We've got Roman Emperors, a Catholic saint, a Shakespearean character, Charlemagne, soldiers, but no baseball players (as far as I know). It's fascinating. Like Jeremy, I don't think it means too much if you've got wonderful people or scoundrels in your bloodline, it doesn't really affect today much. But it is interesting to see how it works out.

Jeremy and I start crossing paths with our great-grandfather, Walter R. Pierce (b. 1876). His son, Walter (b. 1909) was my grandfather, who fathered my father, Donald (b. 1948- yeah, I just told everyone how old my father is, sorry pops). This genealogy is patrilineal, so it doesn't follow the women (though a few of note sneak in), that would be an interesting study as well. But, for now we'll give poor Jeremy a break, he's a busy man.

postgame thoughts on Pats & Chargers

I found a couple things ironic about this past Sunday's game. One, Marty Schottenheimer, head coach of San Diego, has been blasted for years for being a poor playoff coach. The charge (which is accurate, in my opinion) is that he becomes overly conservative in his offensive play calling- he runs too much and throws too many short passes to his running backs rather than trying to move the ball downfield. I find it ironic that part of the reason he lost this game was that he went away from that very thing. In the 4th quarter, with a lead, he should have been handing the ball off or throwing swing passes and short tosses to Tomlinson on almost every play, at least until New England could prove they could stop him with any sort of consistency (which they probably never would have done). Marty went away from his favorite method of run, run, halfback flare (ad naseum) and it may have cost him the game. With 4:30 left in the game and a tie score, he runs once with Tomlinson and throws twice to an overmatched receiving corps, both incomplete (thanks to mostly incompetent receivers). It wasn't the only thing that lost it for them, but it was part of it. Some will note that Roosevelt Colvin's interception was on a little toss to Tomlinson, but I'll counter with the fact that it was not a designed play, but rather a safety valve (which ultimately proved not so safe).

Two, I find the complaining on the part of the Chargers about the excessive celebration by New England to be comical. Mind you, I think the celebrations of some of the Patriots were stupid, but I can't feel bad for a team with someone known for a certain dance that he does after plays, even those he isn't a part of (I'm talking about the steroid abuser, Shawne Merriman). Listen, if you're going to dance after every stupid play, be prepared for the other team to do the same when they come into your home stadium and upset you. It's as simple as that. Grow up. With that said, I would have prefered the Pats not done anything. I'd rather one of the established veterans (Bruschi, for example) simply point out after the game that the Patriots don't talk trash and celebrate prematurely, rather they save their dancing for the Super Bowl victory parade. Nothing like the old timers pointing out the foolishness of the young punks. That would have been better revenge, in my opinion.

Lastly, I find it interesting that most "experts" said that the Patriots would have to play their best game in order to beat San Diego, when in fact the Patriots played quite poorly and still won. Here's the bottom line: you cannot give Tom Brady a chance to beat you in the 4th quarter. He will beat you, you can bet on it (in fact, many do).

A couple other notes:

Sometime in the 4th quarter a person in my viewing crew pointed out that we hadn't heard Asante Samuel's name all night. Samuel is the best cornerback on the Patriots, he tied for the league lead in interceptions and is considered their biggest (if not only) big play threat on defense. Here's the thing, with cornerbacks it's often better that you don't hear their name. If you do, there's a good chance it's because they're getting beat by the wide receiver. There have only been a handful of great corners who could tie up an entire half of the field on their own (Ty Law and Champ Bailey come to mind). Samuel is not one of those corners. He takes chances, when he succeeds he looks great, when he fails it usually means points for the other team. I'd rather not hear his name sometimes, it means his man isn't getting open and the quarterback won't dare throw it his way. It's a sign of respect.

Brady was downright awful at points on Sunday. Yet, he pulled together a great drive at the end of the 1st half, and pulled himself together after an interception (turned fumble recovery thanks to Troy Brown) to lead the game winning drive. He looked like the Brady of 5 years ago, the one I would call the "best bad quarterback in the league" or the "worst great quarterback in the league" depending on my mood. Back then he would look bad for an extended period of time, but then put together something amazing to win the game. In the Pats 1st Super Bowl win he didn't really play that well (look at his numbers sometime), but he commanded the game winning drive with the clock working against him. I'll take that any day.

I think there is one play that stands out to me as defining these two teams. In the 4th quarter Brady throws an awful pass on 4th down which gets intercepted by Marlon McRee, San Deigo's safety, who then tries to run with it but is stripped by veteran receiver Troy Brown ("veteran" in this case is a euphemism for "ancient"), which is recovered by New England, who go on to score the game winning field goal. Here is why this defines the two teams: McRee showed no game awareness, he should have dropped the ball rather than intercept it, giving his team the ball at the Patriots line of scrimmage rather than downfield. Brown on the other hand showed tremendous awareness and went for the ball, which was carelessly held by McRee. The Pats were a smarter, grittier team than the Chargers, and that's why they won.

I'll check back in with some thoughts before the Pats-Colts game this Sunday. Eventually we'll get back to eternal matters on this blog, until I hope you stick around. Thanks for indulging me.

Is there hope for the Patriots this Sunday?

The Patriots are the team of the decade, and will be until the end of the decade even if they don't win another Super Bowl (the chances of anyone catching their 3 Super Bowls are pretty slim). However, they are not the same Patriots that beat the Rams, Panthers and Eagles. They are older and slower, they've lost some key guys and replaced them with lesser quality players. The Chargers, on the other hand, are the team on the rise. They have an impressive young quarterback (Philip Rivers), a steroid abusing stud linebacker (Shawne Merriman), one of the best tight ends in football (Antonio Gates) and the best player in the game (LaDainian Tomlinson).

Some of the things to worry about for the Patriots:

1- they have a lot of trouble with speed rushers, and Merriman is as fast as he is strong, which is saying a lot considering he's a steroid user (and no, this isn't a baseless accusation, for those who don't know he served a 4-game suspension already this year for failing the drug test);

2- they have no one to cover Gates, unless Harrison comes back but even then he'll be injured;

3- Harrison is hurt, he's their best tackler in the secondary (if not the whole team) and a great leader;

4- I'm worried about the Pats ability to stop the run on the outside, while they have the best defensive line in the league and I think they'll do okay against the run up the middle, their outside linebackers (Colvin and Banta Cain), while very fast, are not exactly the world's best run stoppers, and middle linebacker Bruschi has slowed down a ton;

5- Tomlinson is awesome. Whether he's running or receiving, he cannot be stopped. The Patriots have no one who will be able to keep up with him. He is hands down the best player in football, a player I love to watch, just not when he's playing my team.

Way back on Jan 3, on this very blog, I wrote that the Pats would get bounced in the second round. But I'm going optimistic these days, it's time to find the silver lining in the dark cloud, to note the half-fulledness of the cup, to ignore the dog poop on my shoe and keep walking in the sunshine. Here are some reasons why we Patriots fans can have hope that we'll pull off the upset this Sunday:

1- Belicheck is a proven winner in the post season, while San Diego head coach Marty Shottenheimer has proven himself to be a bust in the playoffs time and time again, big advantage to the Patriots;

2- we have Tom Brady, who stopped doing Gap ads and broke up with his movie star girlfriend for such a time as this;

3- Rivers is playing his first game as starting QB in the playoffs, I figure we'll have about 2 quarters to take advantage of this before he finally settles down;

4- as noted, our defensive line is the best in the league, which means if our corners play up enough to slow down the outside speed of San Diego we might be able to quasi-contain their running game (but not stop it), it'll help if Harrison is back;

5- Merriman is a steroid user who has been given a free pass by the media, but my mom always said "cheaters never prosper" and my mom is never wrong;

6- my playoff beard worked well for us this past Sunday, I'm not afraid to skip shaving or trimming it as long as I feel it'll help, remember, I'm the guy who wore the same shirt through the Red Sox historic run in 2004.

So there you have it, I'm sure your outlook on this game is as rosey as mine now that you've seen my airtight case for Patriots superiority. Am I a homer? Absolutely and unashamedly. If I were to step back into the shoes of a non-Pats fan would I pick them to win? Probably not, though I do think they have a better shot than some think. So here is my prediction, bravely written in stone (or on a blog that can be changed or deleted at any time, whatever):

Chargers- 27
Patriots- 30

That Better Be Played at My Funeral

Back in my student days I took a class called Pastoral Ministry. It was a class on the ins-and-outs of pastoral ministry, one of the most practical classes I've ever had. One type of assignment given was to plan out various types of services (funerals, weddings, baptisms, etc), complete with music, sermon and so on. That, of course, got me thinking about how I would like for these services to run in my life. Thus was the beginning stages of something I mentioned way back in the early days of the Hymn of the Week posts: my "That Better Be Played at My Funeral" list.

Some may say it's a bit morbid that I have my funeral planned out. Truthfully, I don't have the entire thing worked out, and have no intentions to do so, but I do have most of the music picked out. I guess I'm just trying to make someone else's life a little easier down the road. Plus, I think it's easier than having a "That Better Be Played at My Wedding" list because that'll probably get shot down when that day comes. I can't be selfish at my wedding, but I can at least attempt to have my funeral go my way (though I'll be dead, I'll be watching).

So here are the hymns that I want played at my funeral, subject to change. In no particular order:

It Is Well With My Soul- this is a no-brainer, what a tremendous song and appropriate for dealing with death and grief (in my top 3 hymns, by the way). I actually could have told you I wanted this sung at my funeral back in my teenage years when we sang this at a funeral for a young boy who had died. Powerful.

Jesus, I Come- I love this hymn so much it was the inaugural Hymn of the Week post, check it out here (also in my top 3 hymns).

Great is Thy Faithfulness- God's faithfulness is something I've experienced and learned in my life, I'd like it to be a theme until the end.

Be Thou My Vision- this one has rapidly moved up my favorites list, I wouldn't mind this being sung at my wedding, too.

Doxology- "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow", I'm a big fan of this ending a service of any kind. So simple, so powerful.

How Great Thou Art- my favorite hymn ever. This is the only song to do double duty on my That Better Be Played at My Wedding list (this would be my one request, well, also that the recessional be Take Me Out to the Ballgame, but I don't expect to win that battle). I haven't put this on a Hymn of the Week post yet, but I will, someday.

You'll notice that my top 3 favorite hymns on here, but there are some other that I love that probably wouldn't fit (All Creatures of our God and King, for example). I haven't blogged about all of these, just It Is Well, Jesus I Come and Be Thou My Vision. This might seem like a lot, but let me warn you that I haven't even started to list out Keith Green songs, so if you attend my funeral, expect to do a lot of singing.

So why such an emphasis on singing, especially these hymns? I'll give you three reasons. First is what I like to call the Charles Wesley Corollary, or what my roommate Jonathan calls the Hymns-Spirit Theorem, which made its public debut on my Be Thou My Vision post. Here is what I wrote then:

Actually, this is a good time to unveil something Jonathan and I discovered a while back. We've found that the power of the Spirit evident in any given meeting is proportional to the quality and quantity of hymns that are sung. I stress quality because one How Great Thou Art is worth at least a dozen renditions of When the Roll Is Called Up Yonder. Maybe we should call this the Charles Wesley Corollary. I'll get back to you on that.

I think I have to play a little loose with the definition of "corollary" in order to make this work, but I'll work on that later. I just like the way it sounds.

Two, I choose these hymns based on my thoughts I gave in my post what would you do if I sang out of tune..., which talked about the role of worship through song within the Church. I'll let you read that at your leisure, but I will say that I think it was the best post/discussion we've had on this blog.

Three, many people come to a funeral to honor and celebrate the life of the deceased person. I suppose that's fine, we should honor the saints who've gone before us and learn from their lives. But when I look at my life I see a life riddled with my own sin and pride. There is little to celebrate that has come from me (and I'm not attempting false modesty here). What I do see, however, is the grace of God through and through. I see blessings beyond number, I see forgiveness that has been thrown my way, I see freedom and joy that I do not deserve. At my funeral I don't want to be talked up or praised (nor should I be so presumptuous to think this would happen). I have one simple request: celebrate the goodness of the Lord. Because whatever is good and praiseworthy in my life owes itself to the goodness of our God. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

still yet another 5.5 random things

5.5: This post is dedicated to the unknown and fortunate person who picked up the $20 bill I accidentally left at the supermarket. Lesson learned: don't talk on the phone while doing the self-check out at the grocery store.

5: The BruceandMorgans have a new blog, complete with pictures of their new son, Elijah, who made his blog of danny debut a couple weeks back. It's just getting off the ground, so be sure to check it out when you get a chance.

4: Okay, so this Boise State upset over Oklahoma may be the greatest game ever played (with all due respect to Vince Young and the '05-'06 Texas Longhorns and Doug Flutie and the '84 Boston College Eagles). Unfortunately, I didn't stay up to watch it. After all, I've always disliked Boise State for playing on a blue field. That just isn't right. However, any team that is willing to run a Hook-and-Lateral and a Statue of Liberty in crucial points at the end of the game (the first to tie the game and send it into overtime, the second was a 2-point conversion to win in overtime) is okay in my book. Seriously, you don't even try that stuff in video games, and to pull it off to win a major bowl game (the first major bowl in Boise State history), well, that earns you the right to play on a blue field for a while. You need to watch the highlights of this game, trust me. Check out them here in a format that is broken down by quarters and the overtime period. You owe it to yourself to watch at least the 4th quarter and the overtime.

3: When you get a minute (actually 2 and a half) watch the trailer to the upcoming movie, Amazing Grace, which comes out in February. It's about William Wilberforce, who fought successfully against the slave trade in England. Let's just say I'll be hiding a few kleenex in my pocket. You know, in case I suddenly have heretofore unknown allergies kick in.

2: New Testament scholar Ben Witherington offered some of his thoughts on the passing of former President Gerald Ford. His mentioning of Ford's son, Mike, as a former Gordon-Conwell student reminded me of a story I heard about him in school. As Witherington notes, Mike Ford always had 2 Secret Service agents with him at all times, following him wherever he went. Apparently the other students had nicknamed these 2 agents "Goodness" and "Mercy" after Psalm 23:6.

1: The Patriots begin their playoff run on Sunday against the hated Jets. Honestly, I'm not sure the Pats will get past the second round (not that the first round is a given considering how Mangini outcoached Belichek in their last meeting). The Pats just don't have enough weapons on either side of the ball. Don't get me wrong, they have some great players: Brady is the best QB in the league (even in this off year I'd take him over anyone come playoff time), Seymour is the best defensive lineman in football, and there are a couple other good ones. But they can't score consistently enough, and their defense doesn't create as many scoring opportunities for the offense as they once did. I'm afraid my Pats will get bounced in the second round again this year. Here's hoping I'm wrong.